![]() |
Petition against "fixing" matches
Hello chiefdelphi world. As you all may know, there were a lot of what were called "gentleman's agreements" going on at several regionals. My team as well as cryptionite started a petition to stop these various acts of agreements. We started a petition, and had teams hang up copies in their pits, showing their support for the anti-fixing. I urge all teams to sign this petition.
First off, this thread is NOT for arguing, there are plenty of other threds out there for that. This thread is simply a place to state that your team disagrees with the practice of working with your opponent to better eachothers scores. So, talk it out with your team, and sign the petition if you agree with it. If you don't agree with this, then dont post anything. Please note that this is not a "blacklist" at all. If there are more teams out there who deny than accept, that these "agreements" will stop. Teams who agree with my team's oppinons, will you please follow my example below. |
Team 68
On behalf of team 68, Truck Town Thunder,
I would like to say that my team disagrees with the practice of fixing matches, and will not do it at any robotics event. I believe that this is in violation of the spirit of F.I.R.S.T., and strongly oppose it. If any team approaches me and wishes to make an agreement, my team will deny and play the game with our own skill. |
On behalf of Team #991, The Dukes, I acknowledge that we have not and we will not engage in points fixing and/or collusion, and we have played and will play all of our matches graciously and professionally using only our own abilities and those of our robot, Uncomfortable Hunk Of Metal (UHOM).
Thank you! |
FIRST is all about gracious professionalism. The world is a competition, but can come together. For example, Lockheed Martin and Boeing fought for bids with rockets, however in the end one lost, one won. This happens in our game. But at the same time these two companies can work together on one goal and create something better than they could individually. The two heads are better than one theory. So while you oppose the team, you do want to stay ahead and win, but you don't want to crush others work, you want to help. After the match you want to go to their pits and say "How can I help you guys make your robot better?" Battlebots even does this, but you seem like you feel we should make this into what it's not. FIRST is known for not being a sport in the fashion of others. This isn't football, we don't crush the other team's robot and cheer. We win, but we all try to expand our minds. I oppose this petition, because in the method it works it is transforming this game into a full fledged game where you can either win or lose, but not all win.
|
Team 980 was the first to sign your petition at the Arizona Regional and we are proud to sign it now.
We feel that the most basic agreement on which the competition is based is the kickoff where the game was described as a 2-on-2 competition, and that forming agreements with your opponents is a basic violation of that concept. We further feel that making agreements with your opponents is harmful to the competition and to FIRST, because if it was continued, teams would soon agree to let all 4 robots get up on the ramp and then start sharing the bins. This would lead to a theatrical performance instead of a competition. Audiences would find this to be boring and fake. In our society, this is not acceptable in any sport or competition that we have ever heard of. Also teams which have worked very hard to make robots that can stack are unfairly deprived of the fruits of their efforts, because teams making agreements with their opponents have huge stacks without making such a mechanism. Additionally we observed that this practice caused bad feeling and upset at the regional we attended, and thus should be discarded as harmful to FIRST as a whole. We have not, and will not, accept any offers by our opponents, and will not alliance with teams in the elimination rounds that do, even if it means that we will not be in the elimination rounds at a competition. |
On behalf of team 1011,
We have not and will not fix any matches. Enough said ;) |
Here is a problem and a solution
Not every team is checking the forum here, and we will not be made aware of their decision on this issue. Even though I totally disagree that agreeing with your opponents is bad, our team will not do it since the majority of FIRST teams think it is invalid.
We also take the responsibility of going around in LA regional and getting a petition signed by those who wouldn't make deals with opponents, and have it printed. Here is the petition I think should be signed (Please correct anything that seems to be wrong): [b]We, as a FIRST robotics team, in the true spirit of FIRST and that of gracious professionalism, agree not to engage in any kinds of "deals" with our opponents in any qualifying matches to keep the integrity of the game designed by FIRST.[/B |
I am totally against fixing matches, but a petition won't do anything about it. Just don't do it yourself. Thats the only way people will get the point that you won't fix matches
|
Team 74 will not and shall not fix any matches.....DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT APPROACHING US!!!!:mad:
|
Quote:
|
compitition
Why would you waste Oxygen on something like fixing matches. That is not any fun and your bound to piss people off. Have fun don't worry so much about winning. Plus in the finals all that fixing won't help you, you'll just get your butt kicked.
|
Of course team 624 (Cryptonite) signs this petition. I would have been the first to sign it, only I was asleep.
We, as a team, voted before alliance selections at the AZ regional, and decided that if one of the two teams in the top 8 who had done this collusion picked us as their alliance partner, we would flat out reject, and forfeit our team from the regionals. We made sure everyone fully understood the implications of this action, and I believe it was unanimous to go through with it if the situation arose. Luckily, it never did. Oh, and WakeZero, since you stated team 1011 "have not and will not fix matches," you are one of the two teams during the regional whose drivers approached us to do this collusion, which we flatly rejected. |
Must i repeate myself?
I will say it again.
Quote:
|
Re: Here is a problem and a solution
Quote:
My team will be passing out a written petition at all events that we attend. It worked once we did it in Arizona. I urge teams attending other regional events to do likewise. PLEASE STICK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND!!! |
Earlier when I posted I had the wrong impression. I thought the petition was against the 2 times the losers score plus your own. I didn't know about matches being fixed at regionals. I know our team will not do that at competition, I promise you that much. I just mistook this petition as against getting rid of the gracious professionalism, sorry about that.
|
Quote:
|
On Behalf of Team 151 (The Wild Cards) We will not, Propose or accecpt and of these such " gentlemens agreements" This is not in the spirt of the competion, and we will not do it.
|
I haven't had a chance to talk to my fellow teammates about this subject yet but I do know that it has come up in the past, and it is strongly condemned by us. Teams, talk to all your members especially the drivers, make sure no one confronts other teams about this. Students that confront others to fix a match have a tendancy to get a very bad reputation for their team. Remember students, your not just a builder, driver, human player, co-pilot, strategist, scout, or any other position, your an ambassador for your team, any wrongs you commit, your team commits.
|
" Oh, and WakeZero, since you stated team 1011 "have not and will not fix matches," you are one of the two teams during the regional whose drivers approached us to do this collusion, which we flatly rejected."
If our driver approached you about this, I apologize. He's young and those around him should have shown better judgement. I hadn't heard anything about these "agreements" until after we got home on Sunday. But as a parent on Team 1011, I will say that this practice does not reflect what we want our team to stand for nor is this behavior something I want my kids to learn from FIRST or anywhere else for that matter. I assure you it will be brought up at our next team meeting. |
I will sign the petetion at Great Lakes and, as I've expressed in the arguement threads, I am strongly against the fixing of matches.
The only way to be is <ripoff>2 legit 2 quit</ripoff> |
It seems that whenever there is a problem somebody breaks out a petition.
The fact is that if some team attempts to throw a match the best way to discourage it is to LOUDLY and openly state in no uncertain terms that you will not tolerate it and that they have ruined any chances of being your chosen alliance partner in the future. (BTW- that means forever for me) Team 25 won't throw matches- don't even ask! Neither will most of our friends. Don't ask them either! WC |
Quote:
|
Although my team thinks differently, I, personally, will sign this petition against collusiuons.
|
On behalf of team 157 (aztechs), we will not fix any matches. Not only is it plain stupid, but never doubt your robot. On Saturday, at the UTC Hartford, we went from 27th place in the morning, to winning the Regional. Always believe in your team.. don't go around cheating.
|
---696 agrees---
On behalf of Team #696, The Circuit Breakers, I acknowledge that we have not and we will not engage in points fixing and/or collusion, and we have played and will play all of our matches graciously and professionally using only our own abilities and those of our robot, Heather. This decision is based on the general consent of our robotics team by the authority of our Team Council, where the vote passed 4-0, with one member absent.
Thank you! -696 |
On behalf of team number 648, QC Elite, I have signed your petition. This against FIRST's intentions and is not an act of gracious professionalism. I say let the robots duel and who ever wins, wins.
|
Quote:
|
Bring it up at the team forum if you dislike it so much
|
Quote:
These petitions really don't solve anything, and are an unproductive waste of time. If you want something done about it, bring it up at the team forum, or to FIRST directly - complaining here won't help you. If people are going to make agreements, this thread, this forum, your team, my team, Dean Kamen, or George Bush won't make a single difference. They will do it anyway. I suggest everyone calm down, and make yor own decisions on how you want to play the game. I know my team will play the game to the fullest strategic ability we can, but I am not going to spew rhetoric to other teams in an attempt to enforce MY code of conduct onto other people. This thread, and others like it, don't serve any purpose. The power to draw a line between what is wrong and what is right is vested soley in the individual. Anyone that thinks it is their duty to be a moral paladin, holding aloft the banners of Gracious Professionalism, needs to get a reality check. Complaining and agreeing with eachother here makes little difference out there. (Oh, and a little FYI: if you don't like the way those teams that rig matches operate, don't select them as alliance partners, that will get your message across in a tangible manner) --Ben |
Quote:
Actually that is exactly what I and others did do at the Arizona Regional. One of our engineers and I spoke to Jason Morella and the head referee for 1/2 an hour. They told us that FIRST pays attention to this forum and to bring up the matter here. What I got is that it is hard for FIRST to make changes based on a few teams, but if 500 teams want something handled it, it will be noticed. So that is what we are doing here. Personally I do not want a repeat of pre-match agreements between teams at the S. Calif. Regional or at the Championship. Also quite honestly our team is in debt now. We want to go to the championships but wouldn't go through the massive effort to get the money if this isn't resolved. We didn't go to Arizona for a 4 team cooperative competition, and we went through quite a lot to try to sort it out. The truth is, this issue just needs to be a matter of what is expected by FIRST without a huge rule change or anything of that nature. However that has not occurred so I am doing what FIRST told us to do--bringing it to this forum. |
The team forum that I refered to is the one done at the end of each season by first to find out what teams liked and disliked about the years game. It is also meant to bring up problems. FIRST does watch cd...but they ALSO listen to the people who bring up problems at the team forums. Many, many changes are made when enough people mention something at the team forum. I agree that a petition would very likely not be as effective in this format however. Actually BRING a petition to the team forum to present to them.
|
I am going to look into information on that team forum, and see if I can attend it.
I think that complaints/suggestions/comments have a much stronger chance of being considered then, post season, than now, in the midst of competition. |
Team 698 at the Arizona regional
I ask that you kindly read my whole post before potentially dismissing it. Thank you.
As the primary strategist (although the alternate driver might disagree <wink>) for team 698, I'd like to state that I disagree with this thread. I understand the purpose of it, however, I'm concerned with the possibility of many teams reading this that might not understand the situation for themselves and are agreeing only because of the buzz words used. For those who weren't there, my team rose up from around 13th place to 1st in about 4 matches during seeding in the Arizona regional last Friday. We did this by cooperating with the opposing team in an effort to get drastically more qualifying points. We agreed to have the four human players place a stack of 4 each, and for neither side to purposely knock down the other two stacks. If it worked, both sides would have multipliers of 4, but the winner would still be determined by who got the most boxes, which was EXACTLY how it was determined before. Prior to this, most of the time, both sides would have their bots knock down all the stacks. (Albeit, yes, there are robots that stack, however a total of about 4 in the nation have proven themselves to work, ours NOT included.) My team and I thought this practice was quite boring, and were simply tired of only getting 40 qualifying points in a game that has a theoretical maximum of something in the 400 range. Nowhere in the rules did it say anything against such a thing, and in fact, it encouraged it with the concept of getting your score plus double the opponants for qualifying points. Also, think about how many times you've heard of FIRST being called a simulation of a real engineering project for a company. Limited deadlines, limited supplies, limited money, and limited help. Obviously, all companies compete, however many work together not to undercut each other unfairly. Isn't this simply what we've been doing? Instead of the opposing team losing with 20 points, they'd lose with 80, in turn not falling quite as far in the ranking. We figured that if we lost in the match, we'd at least lose in style, catapulting someone else higher up in the ranking. It has nothing to do with "fixing scores", or cheating. We've been playing within the rules. As such, you can't simply modify the rules so that it better benefit yourself -- to do so would be against the idea of gracious professionalism. Also, in spite of "fixing the scores", we were only about 150 net points higher than the second place team. Had all of their matches been 15 points higher, they would have tied with us. With this in mind, did what we do really change the outcome of the game? In fact, an engineer from team 980 suggested the idea that we would have been 5th seed even if we didn't. FOUR positions isn't necessarily that much of a difference for "cheating" or "fixing the scores", wouldn't you agree? Which is why from my point of view, it seems that many people are blowing this entirely out of proportion. I have no problem with people not agreeing to do this, but petitions, signs, and hateful words are COMPLETELY against the spirit of FIRST. FIRST is NOT about competition or even building a robot. It's about building connections with other people, with students to engineering, and generally having fun. Putting up signs only puts up barriers, which is why I chose to directly speak with several other angry teams at the event and make amends. And as a final note, don't you think Mr. Kamen thought about this very thing before this competition year started? Thanks everybody! <steps off his soapbox> If you would like to debate/comment/flame/agree/whatever with or about this post, please feel free to email me at soup@tank.dyndns.org. Sorry about the length, but I really wanted to make sure I got my point across. --Jonathan Tate (primary driver, vice president of team 698, the Microbots) |
Re: Team 698 at the Arizona regional
Quote:
You claim that what you are doing is in the spirit of F.I.R.S.T., and that by creating this petition, My team is doing the opposite. A statement like that can ruin a team's reputation, so use your words sparingly. To clear this all up, F.I.R.S.T., as well as thousands of people in the F.I.R.S.T. community, disagrees with you. They have stated here that your actions are not in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism. Yes, I am aware that there is no rule against what you are doing. However, there are a lot of people out there who think that it is wrong. And yet, you continue to defend your actions. I am fine with that, but it think that putting down my team as well as others is absolutely ridiculous. I am not asking for an apology, I am asking you to please express your opinions in private, or you can email me. My team will continue to keep petitions going. As “useless” as people think they are. They have worked, and will work. |
Re: Re: Team 698 at the Arizona regional
Quote:
Quote:
I'm also confused about you insisting his opinions be addressed in private, when your opinions are publicly addressed. Jason speaks for himself |
I apologise, i dont speak for Dean, and never meant that i did. I took offense to that post, and i overreacted. You all know how i feel about the Gentalmens agreements, so i wont go there.
This is a competition. People will play it how they see fit no matter what i say. Im just trying to help. |
Re: Team 698 at the Arizona regional
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I appreciate that you tried to make amends, and as you pointed out the next day, you ceased making agreements with your opponents. Are you now suggesting that we all make agreements with our opponents? The purpose of this thread is to try to get the competition back to a 2-on-2 competition, as it was designed to be. Do you want to change it to a 4 team coooperative event? If so, start your own thread and vote or petition, and we will see who has the most votes. Then we can present the matter to FIRST. I sure don't want a repeat of this situation in S. Calif. Do you? Quote:
|
The "Gentlemen's Agreements" that have been taking place throughout the regionals are definately not in the spirit of FIRST, and do not benefit any team in any way, shape, or form. I was scouting at the Arizona Regional... and I won't mention any team numbers, or names, but I was approached by one opposing team to leave the human player stacks up during the match. I was shocked... This idea hadn't even crossed my mind yet... I just kind of ignored the remark and then shortly left that pit. Oh yeah, we won that match anyways.
These competitions do include strategy... no doubt I worked hard talking to team after team after team... and fixing matches never crossed my mind. 234 definately does not support the fixing of matches in any way , shape, or form. And if your team does support fixing matches, and somehow makes it to the finals, you're just more likely to be eliminated in the finals - which doesn't do your alliance partners much good either, especially if they do not support the Gentlemen's Agreement strategy. I know there won't be a rule against this, but one would think that teams would have enough common sense and a sense of morals to do the right thing. What ever happened to doing the right thing? Has our society infected the morals of a few in FIRST? I hope not... maybe I'm just looking into this all too much... However, the Arizona Regional was still excellent and amazing , and I'd be glad to do it all over again :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I meant your statement that Mr Kamen did not think about this before the competition year started. I believe Jason's post addressed that. |
Quote:
I read it. The rules never accounted for people to go and rig the match. The spirit of the rules was just to add another dimension so that teams would flat out win 100-0. That would be the opposite extreme of what is going on now. Unfortunately now we need a middle or else these competitions are going to get really boring fast. |
I suppose my only real response to all these "fixing" discussions is really, who cares? Why make such a big deal out of it? Some people disagree with it and don't feel it should be part of the competition. Some people think it's just an interesting feature of the strategy of the game. So far, the actual act of "fixing" a match has hurt exactly no one.
However, the finger pointing and accussations surrounding the "fixing" have hurt people. There have been complaints about various teams and practices as long as I've been in FIRST. I've found many of them distasteful. However, the acrimony that was created by the discussions of these practices have probably caused much more damage than the practices themselves. Personally, I think there are still a number of teams and individuals who don't "get it" (and I'm referring to groups on both sides of the argument but most definitely not specifics as I haven't been paying enough attention to know who they are). There have always been people who don't get it in FIRST. They have a tendency to either leave or figure out what it's all about. As long as the FIRST community stays as strong as it is, I don't worry about the so called problems with the "fixing." Matt |
222 Has never and never will participate in a fixed match that is all i have to say.
|
Quote:
The point is, FIRST stated already that it's not a part of its Gracious Professionalism ideals, and should stop. |
So much for the petition.
Once again, please argue your opposition to this petition at http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=19272.
You were asked politely enough by the creator of this thread to only post here if you are pledging not to fix your matches. Those of us who wish to compete fairly are already being denied that opportunity. Please do not deny us this one as well. |
I would go for the soccer version of scoring. 3 points for a match win, one for a tie, nil for a loss. That would eliminate any of the pre-arranged lack of stack attack. At the Sacramento regional, there were about 20% of the matches where multiplying stacks were not attacked
|
Quote:
That's why I find this whole discussion silly. What's the FIRST competition about? So does it really matter if some teams act stupidly? Matt |
Quote:
For me no, but others, probably. I remember one time I went to a hockey game when I was 12 years old, and the only memory of that game I have is some guy getting escorted out of the arena for being a jerk by being overly loud and just plain obnoxious. You remember the bad experiences more than the good ones. FIRST doesnt want you to look back 30 years from now and one of the only memories you have is that some team wanted you to help them win by cheating or hurting yourself. Fixing is cheating and I will not be apart of an alliance that does it. Also petitioning is not going to do anything. As DougHogg said, the petition halted the practice matches in Arizona. If my practice match was cut because of that I would be fuming out the ears. Fixing matches is wrong, trying to petition this is wrong. 2 wrongs dont make a right. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The petition halted the "practice" of fixing matches, not practice matches. I know this for sure, because my team passed out the petition, on saturday. The petition in Arizona WORKED! And, it didnt "cut" any practice matches. We arn't doing a wrong here, we are trying to help. And for the last time, please debate this in some other thread, i wish to keep the original puropse of this thread intact. Thank you. |
Quote:
Quote:
I see what you mean now, but there were a few details left out in DougHogg's statement. I wasn't the only one who read it that way..., try to be more specific next time. |
If I see anyone fixing matches at Peachtree, I will see to it that the judges are informed. That's all I have to say.
|
Quote:
Are you speaking about collusion or fixing? Where has it come up that the judges are going to monitor "fixing" or "collusion"? "What everyone is discussing on this thread falls under the definition of 'collusion' - not 'fixing' or 'cheating'." "I thought it was a great opportunity for students and teams to solve an issue without FIRST - that they could solve it with discussion, diplomacy, and consensus instead of anger and resentment. " "I did point out that FIRST could not police this even if we wanted to, so it really was a decision totally up to the teams." Jason Morrella West Coast FIRST link FIRST said FIXING the game to achieve a tie is against Gracious Professionalism link |
Guys, is this discussion really going anywhere at all? I think people need to agree to disagree. All we are doing here is fighting, and going back and forth arguing with each other.
|
Quote:
I thought arguing was different than debate, and I, curious, looked up the definition. To put forth reasons for or against; debate: To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend: To give evidence of; indicate: To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons: According to that definition, I don't believe arguing is a bad thing. I think fighting however is useless... def. A quarrel or conflict. To engage in a quarrel; argue: Idioms: fight fire with fire To combat one evil or one set of negative circumstances by reacting in kind. And I believe debate is healthy... To consider something; deliberate. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. |
Cheryl, you are too funny ... :p
|
Quote:
What we are trying to do with this petition is re-establish agreement between teams on how to compete: a) 2-on-2, b)as a Team of 4 or c)as a combination of a) and b). Personally I think that we should stick to 2-on-2 because that was the way the game was designed. In Arizona, we discussed the issue of teams making agreements with their opponents with Jason Morrella of FIRST. He advised us to talk to other teams at the regional and to take up the matter here in this forum. That is what we are doing: communicating to try to restore the commaradarie of FIRST, which seemed to be slipping away at times in Arizona. (There was a certain amount of upset and anger over what was happening.) If we are all operating on the same rules, agreement will be restored and we can throw ourselves into the competition with enthusiasm. If we lose, we will know that we were beaten fairly because everyone was operating under the same rules. While FIRST is not just about the competition, the competition is a vehicle for achieving our goals. So if the basic format (2-on-2 or Team of 4) is in doubt, that causes upsets and disagreements. Quite honestly, if the teams voted to turn this year's game into a Team of 4 competition, I wouldn't bother going to the Championships, because the game wasn't designed that way. How hard is it to make human player stacks, split the bins and roll all 4 robots up the ramp? I really do want us to have the 2-on-2 competition I thought we were going to have. And I don't want to have to go through the whole process of convincing each team at the S. Calif. Regional to agree not to make agreements with their opponents. And I don't even want to think about trying to do that at the Championships. See "Rigging the Game" in the FIRST Forum. See the post by Jason Morrella, FIRST So if your team thinks that we should agree not to make pre-match agreements with our opponents, please sign this petition. |
Quote:
Personally I was hurt for various reasons... since 698 already stated that they disagree with this thread... and well I pretty much I assumed it at the competition for various and obvious reasons. I feel as if we might have been short changed.... but that's just me, not necessarly the views from other members of 234. I'm not trying to start or continue an argument... I'm just stating my opinions, and the opinions of others. If somehow you find that offensive, well I'm sorry.. but there's not much I can do about that now... except to try to talk about this issue.. maybe come up with a new outlook or something. |
Quote:
Arizonal Regional __Match 0043 Alliance Team Score QP _ _Blue _ 698 _128 _322 _MICROCHIP/HHS _ _Blue _ 606 _128 _322 _NASA/JPL/KingDrew LA _ _Red _ 234 _ 97 _ 97 _Cyber Blue _ _Red _ 812 _ 97 _ 97 _UCSD & PREUSS Team 698 did stop making pre-match agreements after the petition was taken around. I think that we need to concentrate on getting agreement from the other teams on the petition, so we can make sure that we don't have a repeat of the situation at other competitions. There are too many hard feelings being generated. The fact is that the rules do not forbid talking to the opponents. Therefore we will have to get the rules changed or get the teams to agree not to do it. We need to get this thread back to its original purpose. |
Quote:
Im glad that people take the time to, oh, i dont know....READ THE FIRST POST! Ive been more than kind. Im just freakin out here. Come on people. Ok, im better now. Thank you once again |
Quote:
whether we ageed to participate in an agreement for that match should not matter. its over and we have moved on. |
I think the 3+ threads have accomplished enough discussion about this.
Let's put it on the back burner and bring it up in a week or so if there's more to be said. Ken L said it best: Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:24. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi